About your Search

20121108
20121116
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8
house in order. or begin that process. it's argued by the pentagon leaders that the military sequester would be crippling and would endanger national security. and, of course, the aerospace industries argue that there will be tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of jobs lost if the sequester were enforced. there's another way to look at the military sequester, which is what our panel is organized to do. and especially if you conclude, as do some of us, as do i, that the defense department is excessively large, riddled with inefficiency and subject to the corrupting influence of the defense industry. president obama believes that it is time to end our wars and to do nation building at home. the sequester, feared by many, could be, however, a way of opening the door to nation building. of ourselves. by shifting resources from defense to domestic needs. as we saw in the disasters of katrina and sandy, our infrastructure needs alone are enormous. whether as a result of horrendous storms or not. to cite just a few, the cost of repairing and replacing our water system -- dams, lev
, actually, to a private sector led economy, reintegrate ourselves with pentagon into central asia, we don't see much progress in this front, and on the issue of transition to the security responsibility to the afghans, really, to take speedometer of the fight up on themselves because there is no shortage of courage or skill in afghan. the afghan should be fighting the fight themselves. u.s. should get out of the combat role in afghanistan. that's good for afghanistan and the u.s., and also, it makes limited use presence in afghanistan sustainable if no u.s. soldier dying in afghanistan. therefore, in this front also, there's not many progress or cooperation by friends in pakistan. we very much would like, actually, the afghan people, particularly the government, see improvement on that. just to end on very short comments on what some of the distinguished panelists have mentioned, i totally expect that the issue of not having any evidence on bin laden be in islamabad. hard to imagine someone hiding in west point in the united states and in a businessman, friewntly speak the language, that
a said on a number of occasions, the pentagon, the intelligence community believe that this legislation is vitally to the safety and security of our country. so before thanksgiving, we're going to finish the sports men's bill, we're going to have -- the republicans need to kill the cybersecurity bill. they've been following the lead of the chamber of commerce, which is an arm of the republican party anymore. it is just a front for the republican party. they spend huge amounts of money that they get from unknown sources to defeat democrats. they wasted their money this time, but that's the way it is. they are opposing this bill for not any logical reason. then we -- senator levin and mccain have asked to go to defense authorization. i think if this bill is as important as they say it is -- and they say it is important; i know how senator levin and senator mccain feel about it -- looks like they would clear away some of this stuff that's getting in the way. but that's where we are. i think it is religionly a bridge too far to complete the defense authorization bill before we leave but we
are actually sharing priorities? >> na experience back here in town with ngos coming to the pentagon or the defense department on their side either asking for help or asking for distance or what experience do you have there? >> i have, the red cross comes to mind but i think the issue with ngos from my point of view is very few actually come in other than to say how can we help and who do we go to? that was very prevalent during katrina. a lot of people wanted to just go and they knew enough to know that just showing up wouldn't work. so they were trying to not bother the operations and they were coming to the pentagon to say how can we help in what and what can we do? i think that scenario replays itself at various levels all over the world, and so again, i am torn by the need to keep the government out of a local cooperative effort so that the benefits of capitalism can come up with a solution that is efficient, low-cost and philanthropic way supported. you have people confuse with a very limited amount of technology and infrastructure requirements like the use of cell phones and h
that was -- that was and is most important that sends the money to the pentagon was just killed, and that's cybersecurity. mr. president, i have had a number of people come to me during the day and said are you going to allow relevant amendments on this? i said sure. they said how about five? i said fine. but, mr. president, whatever we do on this bill, it's not enough for the chamber of commerce, not enough. so everyone should understand cybersecurity is dead for this congress. what an unfortunate thing, but that's the way it is. the sportsman's bill, mr. president, i filed cloture on this bill yesterday. unless we can agree to a limited number of amendments, we'll have cloture vote on the bill early tomorrow morning, probably around 9:00. if we get cloture, there will be a potential 30 hours for debate. under the rules as we all know too well. i have been told that some on the other side also plans to make a budget act point of order against the sportsman's bill. we have members representing the states of new york and new jersey who are going to be in their states tomorrow because of the tremendous damage
to a close, president roosevelt wrote a letter to a fella named van bush who was head of r&d for the pentagon and said, listen, we've had this wonderful, heroic, world-saving effort to mobilize technology and radar, and, you know, proximity views, you know, all number of inventions, synthetic rubber and, of course, the atomic bomb, and we need now to bring that same miracle of progress and sort of organized, concerted effort to the civilian front including medical care. and that document, again, it became sort of the founding agenda document for the whole postwar effort by completely bipartisan -- truman, eisenhower including the kennedy/johnson space mission -- to put the curve ending from science front be and center into national policy. and i think it's been unfortunate that that scientific emphasis has spun off of the national agenda over the last few years, and i think we've all paid a price for it not only in terms of our own health, but the future costs for medical programs. and now i'm optimistic we can find a way to get it back on the agenda in this second term. i would point to, for
-tightening mode, it's important to keep in mind it's not just the pentagon that has not done things very cost effectively. i'm a big fan of the recent health care reform, but it was, you know, one of its strong points was not cost containment. and in addition, the cost containment measures that were there were not viewed as credible. and so that was a political decision, and partly it was a function of how it was done. and, you know, again i'm being cynical. i say the republicans, it's not so much that -- you know, republicans are not a monolith although they're closer than democrats, but some republicans genuinely don't want to increase taxes on the middle class and don't want a double dip recession. but the way that the party, the revealed preferences of the party in recent years has been they're much more concerned about the wealthy, you know, tan they are about these things -- than they are about these things. the democrats, so we are told now, i mean, it's a bargaining position. you know, the president has gone all out saying one thing they really want out of this is tax increases, you k
the pentagon and all the men and women in uniform who serve us so well as to the policies of the united states. i know i'll work with my colleague from alabama to see that accomplished. mr. president, i come back to the senate floor today as i have on many occasions to urge all of us to take action on a spool that's -- policy that's bipartisan, in its support and ramification. that is the production tax credit for wind energy. we need to renew that production tax credit. it's encouraged billions of dollars in investment and helped create tens of thousands of good-paying moobs across our country -- american jobs across our country. but i have to tell your our inaction here is jeopardizing the future of what's really a promising industry. we've literally over the last months seen wind industry jobs in the thousands disappear. that's not a statistic, not just a statement, those jobs affected real americans. and these job losses were completely preventible. and it's time for us to get back to work and extend the production tax credit so that our wind energy industry can also get back to work. and
Search Results 0 to 7 of about 8